Labeling what we roll out as beta, and more importantly noting that
there are further changes that are needed, makes sense to me. With an
important caveat. That was not how I read your note, which is why I
was asking.
There is an issue in that we will either need to preserve the beta code
permanently, or be able to convert any beta RFCs with formatting
preserved into final RFCs. If all the changes are extensions, that
clearly works. However, if they are not, I wonder how we publish RFCs
with requisite permanence.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/28/2019 1:34 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 28.08.2019 19:17, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Julian, are you really asking that we stop the rollout of v3, have an
extended working group process to design a new v3, and then develop
tools, etc. for that? I think the community would be very unhappy at
the delay.
Rolling out what we have now is fine. Just label it "beta". Pretending
it's done when there's a huge backlog of issues however is IMHO not ok.
I'm not asking for a working group. What I'm asking for is that we take
revising RFC 7991 (which does *not* describe what's being rolled out)
seriously, and that the feedback that has come in over almost three
years is actually being taken into account.
And just to be clear, I am pretty sure there was input from lots of
constituencies at every stage of the development of the v3 we have in
front of us.
<https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues>: 44 open
issues.
<https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-rfcv3-preptool-bis>: 12 open
issues.
<https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-html-rfc-bis>: 14 open issues
There's also unprocessed feedback it xml2rfc's trac instance, plus many
mails on xml2rfc/xml2rfc-dev that haven't been replied to.
I understand that people want to finish this. It's taken too long,
agreed. But what happens now looks like rushing things out, instead of
doing it properly, and the way it was promised back when RFC799x were
published.
Best regards, Julian
